TB1-18789

TB1-18789

The claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated (inconsistencies, omissions, failure to pursue/declare US claim, weak medical and handwritten statements, implausibilities about travel and passport), and objective documentary evidence shows generalized security scrutiny of Tamils rather than personal targeting; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or, on the balance of probabilities, a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim must be rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-18789
Parties
Claimant (asylum Seeker): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection (ss.96 and 97(1), IRPA)
Legal Topics
Refugee Status Determination, Credibility Assessment, Well‑founded Fear, Risk of Torture, Particular Social Group (tamils), Corroboration of Evidence, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law International Protection Refugee Status Determination Credibility Assessment Well‑founded Fear +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Seeker)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant would personally face risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and omissions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated (inconsistencies, omissions, failure to pursue/declare US claim, weak medical and handwritten statements, implausibilities about travel and passport), and objective documentary evidence shows generalized security scrutiny of Tamils rather than personal targeting; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or, on the balance of probabilities, a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim must be rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection (ss.96 and 97(1), IRPA)